Copyright again ... potentially a serious problem.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/


"It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

I think they have it all backwards.

It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can
own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is
supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of
such information.

What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had
to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is
the ease with which it allows people to share information.




--



Regards,



Eric Stevens

On 2012.11.14 17:40 , sobriquet wrote:
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/


"It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."

I think they have it all backwards.

It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can
own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is
supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of
such information.

The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be
declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar
(that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an
absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the
start of something useful.

What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).

What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from
other sites.

Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had
to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.

Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is
the ease with which it allows people to share information.

Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,
slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue
their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,
publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof
of it, but that's another matter).

If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his
research and results will not be available online at all.

--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 11:56:35 PM UTC+1, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.11.14 17:40 , sobriquet wrote:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:06:19 PM UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06...phan_blessing/





"It's essentially an argument about using other people's stuff without their permission."



I think they have it all backwards.



It's essentially an argument about questioning the claim that people can

own information as intellectual property and to what degree that is

supposed to imply a monopoly on the reproduction and distribution of

such information.



The issue here appears to be the speed or ease at which work can be

declared an orphan because the bar is set so low. Set a reasonable bar

(that includes looking inside the image metadata for contact data and an

absolute bar to removing such information) and perhaps there is the

start of something useful.


That issue is beyond the actual reality of the way information
finds its way on the internet these days.
If I create a picture and share it (regadless whether I sell it
or give it away), it can turn into a meme and thousands of people
can be making modifications and distributing it online again,
and those images can be further modified again and so on.
That renders the whole ownership discussions completely
irrelevant and moot.

The people who have these discussions are still living in the analogue
past where you had a clear distinction between centralized publishers who
were responsible for reproduction and distribution (and copyright laws
to protect them from unfair competition from other publishers) and
consumers who could only consume content, but were more or less unable
to modify it, reproduce it or redistribute it in any practical fashion.



What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system

of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the

one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely

and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks).



What's really needed is that people who use content don't steal it from

other sites.


There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
it theft.
But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
information".



Imagine how little progress there would be in science if each scientist had

to figure out things from scratch and wasn't able to freely draw upon the results from their predecessors.



Scientists invented the knowledge that allowed us to develop information technology and at the very core of modern information technology is

the ease with which it allows people to share information.



Academic scientists receive salary, offices, labs, equipment, grants,

slaves (students) and so on, often from the public purse, to pursue

their research. Part of the their remit is to "publish, publish,

publish." (And then there are the publishing houses making oodles oof

of it, but that's another matter).



If the scientist works for some company then you can be sure his

research and results will not be available online at all.


But do we really need to have companies or money for some deep and
fundamental reason?
Maybe in the near future we can reproduce commodities with the
same ease at which we can currently reproduce digital content.
At that point the whole role of money as a universal substitute
is completely redundant, because money only makes sense in a world
where things are scarce.

That's the whole idea of copyright nowadays, to artificially try
to keep information scarce, while any teenager understands information
is actually not scarce at all. So it's like proof that there are no limits
to human stupidity to try and ignore the fact that everybody can easily
share information and pretend that information is like a commodity that
can't be easily reproduced and distributed (heck, it can even be
modified, recombined with other pieces of information).

All because supposedly people will stop creating new content when they
can no longer rely on their traditional monopoly on the reproduction
and distribution of their creations.

The remix culture of the internet proves otherwise.



--

"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties

were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."

-Sir John A. Macdonald

sobriquet writes:

There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
it theft.
But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
information".

So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
"songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
"director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:11:24 AM UTC+1, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
sobriquet writes:



There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

it theft.

But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

information".



So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

"songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

"director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?


You missed this part?

"What's really needed is regulations that ensure there is a fair system
of financial compensation for those who contribute fresh content on the
one hand, while simultaneously encouraging people to share information freely
and indiscriminately (like on p2p networks). "




--

Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)

Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/

Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/

Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

| There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You
| might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call
| it theft.
| But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright
| infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when
| copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will
| actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing
| information".
|
| So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",
| "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",
| "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV
| production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes
| hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of
| millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?
|

That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the
two views:

Young people who don't know what it means
to work for a living think that everything should be
free. (It always has been for them, after all.)

At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven
Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations
that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,
etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big
deal about the presumed value of their creations.

But much of what they're producing is essentially
a business venture meant to profit by titillating some
part of the public enough that those people will pay
for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,
which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art
implies something edifying and entertainment is really
just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and
attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and
attention.

In between the two extremes in the copyright debate
are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist
does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which
is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is
not a business venture.

Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting
creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's
some artistic value involved and not just some kind of
unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy
band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls
can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,
a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....
And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social
commentary books. Do those people really deserve to
make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?

How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In
the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists
buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse
copyright was due to expire.

It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction
between art, entertainment and business before copyright
law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can
be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be
honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively
if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is
just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy
to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would
be missing the big picture.

On Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:18:08 PM UTC+1, Mayayana wrote:
| There is no stealing involved in p2p filesharing whatsoever. You

| might as well call if murder or rape if you are going to call

| it theft.

| But demonize filesharing all you want, it's merely copyright

| infringement and it's inevitable the day will soon come when

| copyright infringement will not just be legal, but it will

| actually be encouraged and it will be called "sharing

| information".

|

| So, what, you plan to completely destroy the professions "musician",

| "songwriter", "arranger", "conductor", "novelist", "screenwriter",

| "director", "actor", all the craft jobs associated with film and TV

| production, and so forth? You think people will create art that takes

| hundreds of man-years of time, costing many millions (or hundreds of

| millions) of dollars, without some way to get the viewers to pay for it?

|



That seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the

two views:



Young people who don't know what it means

to work for a living think that everything should be

free. (It always has been for them, after all.)



At the other extreme are James Cameron, Steven

Spielberg, George Lucas, TV producers, the corporations

that invent and market new bands, bestseller authors,

etc. who like to call themselves artists and make a big

deal about the presumed value of their creations.



But much of what they're producing is essentially

a business venture meant to profit by titillating some

part of the public enough that those people will pay

for the pleasure. In other words, it's entertainment,

which is actually the opposite of art, insofar as art

implies something edifying and entertainment is really

just emotional masturbation. Art requires effort and

attention. Entertainment is an escape from effort and

attention.



In between the two extremes in the copyright debate

are people creating art, or at least trying to. An artist

does it for its own sake and rarely makes money. Which

is not to say that poverty is noble. It's just that art is

not a business venture.



Copyright is meant to serve the public by supporting

creativity. (With the term creativity I'm assuming there's

some artistic value involved and not just some kind of

unique item.) The latest marketer-designed boy

band aimed at vacuuming money from 12-year-old girls

can hardly be called art.... Likewise with Cameron's Avatar,

a silly, megahit version of Saturday morning cartoons....

And the endless stream of romance novels and glib social

commentary books. Do those people really deserve to

make millions of dollars? Would society suffer without them?



How do we decide how much creativity is worth? In

the US it was decided awhile back by Disney lobbyists

buying a Congressional vote when the Mickey Mouse

copyright was due to expire.



It seems that we have to come up with a clear distinction

between art, entertainment and business before copyright

law can really be fair to all involved... and before there can

be any hope of appealing to someone like sobriquet to be

honest and decent. He/she knows perfectly well, instinctively

if not consciously, that much of the Hollywood machine is

just sleazy manipulation for profit. That makes it very easy

to rationalize theft. ...To blame either side exclusively would

be missing the big picture.

Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.

What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
usually the bitstrings are much longer.

These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

There can be no sensible definition of the public domain that doesn't
include all bitstrings and there can be no sensible claim that people
are free to share information (as claimed in the universal declaration
of human rights) if it doesn't include all possible bitstrings.

So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion about human rights
and the freedom to share information first (in relation to the new
reality of contemporary information technology like computers,
smartphones and the internet) and after that has been settled, we
can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
on information that can be distributed to those who create new
content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
are not a paying member from that library)?
The internet plays that same role in society of making information
more accessible, for the benefit of contributing to raising the
general level of knowledge and understanding among the population,
except that the internet is way more efficient and effective as a
library.

On 2012-11-15 07:43:01 -0800, sobriquet said:

Ok, demonize filesharing as theft. I demonize such people who demonize
filesharing as Nazi cockroaches. A little over the top, but likewise
I think it's way over the top to accuse people of being thieves or
parasites when all they are doing is reproducing information.

What internet filesharing really boils down to is people who collect
and exchange bitstrings. Things like 0010101110101100000011001, except
usually the bitstrings are much longer.

These bitstrings can be anything. Movies, software, music, text, pictures,
etc.. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they are bitstrings.

We have been through your rationalizations at tedious length before.
What you fail to address is, there is a big difference between
"sharing", "dissemination of information", and "distribution" of an
individually, proprietary, or corporately owned product or media file.

Just because a legitimate method of commercial distribution can be via
the internet, does not make unauthorized copying, and redistribution
via P2P sites, and subsequent unauthorized use, any less immoral and
theft.

If a creator of the image, music, movie, etc. choses to protect their
property, and states so, any unauthorized use is theft and
exploitation. Those creative individuals and corporations have every
right to be rewarded for their creative efforts regardless of your
perception of their motives. Those files are far from being declared
"public domain".
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, try making the same
demand of a food vendor, restauranteur, food franchise, or farmer
(individual or agri-business).
....or for that matter any manufacturer of any product, from your
clothing to the table your computer sits on, or the materials they are
fabricated from, and designs they dare to retain copyright of.

Even with image files on the great majority of sharing sites, the
ownership and sharing options are retained by the creator.

For most truly "public domain" files creators would actually prefer
some attribution and will let you know their feelings regarding that
issue by including an appropriate statement in the copyright
information field of the exif of their images.
Consider that there is the simple honoring of a creator's request when
they include a Creative Commons license to their work. I for example
will use the CC "Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike" license
notification. Read it, and try to understand it.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...3.0/deed.en_US

All you propose remains a rationalization for theft.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

| So what we actually need is a fundamental discussion
| about human rights
| and the freedom to share information first ....after
| that has been settled, we
| can consider less fundamental issues like a system that ensures
| there is a fair and transparent financial compensation for those who
| are engaged in creative efforts (for instance by means of a tax
| on information that can be distributed to those who create new
| content in proportion to how popular their creations are).

So the world, for you, is a socialist amusement park?
You have a human right to use everything in the world?
You're not willing to pay for anything you use, but you
claim you're willing to pay a tax for materials that others
use? That's not intellectually honest. And why should
everyone have to a creation tax? Why should I pay Lady
Gaga to live as a millionaire just because some people
like her music? I don't even listen to music. And I certainly
wouldn't accept the case that her product enriches society.
So I see no justification for the public paying her way.

|
| Like why do we have public libraries where everybody can consume
| information for free (if you read books at the library, even if you
| are not a paying member from that library)?

Libraries do not make copies. They lend copies. We
pay for those books with our taxes. Apparently you
neither work nor pay taxes. In that case your parents
are paying for your use of libraries. They are funded
by the public and they buy the books that they lend
out.